Main page

Talk page

Submissions Category — List (sorting)

Showcase

Participants Apply — By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog drives

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

April 20

• Arismauve (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:I Forgive You (Sia song) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I posted News that y'all want, and in news they said "single" as I Forgive You. But Why declined? I really can't understand Arismauve (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arismauve: One source by itself, no matter how good it is, cannot support a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Biospeleologist (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mandhip Khol ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Suggest how to modify for publishing my article Mandhip Khol in wikipedia. Biospeleologist (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Цымбалов Данил (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:"Гипотеза Цымбалова". ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

В чем проблема? Цымбалов Данил (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Цымбалов Данил: This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have zero use for content that is not in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Automated translation - ru] Это англоязычная Википедия. Мы не можем использовать контент, написанный не на английском языке. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamesmfinnegan (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:There will never be enough darkeness and evil in this whole world that will or can ever dim the light from one single candle of hope ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this not acceptable? Jamesmfinnegan (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted as a test page, as it had no content. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted drafts, but judging from the messages on your user talk page, you need to read what Wikipedia is not carefully. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Caeid (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:QDAcity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I hope this message finds you well. We have submitted our request some times and it just got rejected. As you know, we have a product with a long history but the last release date was 2 weeks ago. There are lots of pages in this field that have the same content and the same sources and they got approved but it's strange about our page that just rejected. We used as many sources and references as we can and we expect to get approved. Please help us in this regard Caeid (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeid: "We"? This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and odds are the other articles you're looking at were never drafted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about your company or your products: that is called promotion and is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.

If several people wholly unconnected with you and your associates, and not fed information by or on behalf of you (eg interviews, press releases) have chosen to write about your company at length, and been published in reliable sources, then there could be an article about your company. It would be based almost 100% on what those sources had said about you - good and bad - and not on what you or your associates say or want to say.

You are strongly discouraged from trying to write such an article, because it will be even harder for you because of your conflict of interest than it otherwise would. If you choose to do so anyway, then having found your indepedent sources, you would have to do the difficult step of forgetting everything you know about the company, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources said - even if you disagreed with some of what they said. Do you see why this is discouraged?

As for those other articles: please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadikul Masduq (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Salman Habib ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have updated my article you can check now. Sadikul Masduq (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadikul Masduq: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Beatrix leo (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Bahria Town Listings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article is showing me that this submission is declined? Beatrix leo (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was thoroughly promotional and has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

• עומר תשבי (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Shalom Meckenzie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined due to so called "lack of sources". However, there are many sources on the article. Furthermore, Meckenzie is a leading shareholder in a huge company, with significant coverage in all main financial websites Both in Israel and The US עומר תשבי (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone looking at this draft: Subject falls into a community-authorised contentious topic (Web3). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexbarg (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Michael Bargeron ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined because of not providing reliable sources for the information, however the sources of information were from the official British Shooting website and from a BBC news article solely about the person who the Wikipedia page was about. The initial reason for the Wikipedia page to be created was because there was a separate page which referenced the individual in question with a hyperlink which said there was no existing page for the individual. Please can you advise? Alexbarg (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NATH for the criteria they need to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 37.252.90.42 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Muthumudalige Nissanka ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello There, I have just translated Wikipedia article written in Sinhala, Sri Lanka language. Unfortunately Wikipedia rejected it , I am new to Wikipedia and trying to do something better to social, specially as a translator I am trying to translate a Wikipedia articles which is written in Sinhala to English for free, Please kindly help me to improve the knowledge and find what is the wrong with my translating's. Here is the link to original article > https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A_%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%92%E0%B7%81%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%81%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9A 37.252.90.42 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't seem to mention Muthumudalige Nissanka? Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Varshu018 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Jhanak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is not being accepted since a long time Varshu018 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done anything about the reviewers comment "The Times of India cannot be used to source entertainment articles - please find more reliable sources" Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MartinJeremy78 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Diana Elizabeth Martinovich ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article was declined. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinJeremy78: it was declined for lack of evidence of notability, as explained in the decline notice. We need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and your draft cites none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you about it. I have provided you several sources that confirm my articcle and data about Mrs. Diana Elizabeth Martinovich. It seems to me you have something personal against Diana Elizabeth Martinovichm,because there are persons with much less accomplishments and with much less notability that are published on Wikipedia. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Topg1985 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:William John Titus Bishop ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An Editor, HouseBlaster, is repeatedly commenting on and editing my draft. It feels like disruptive editing and a personal issue. There seems to be a query about notability, but I am sure the topic is notable.

All my Love,

Topg1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: I have nothing against you or Bishop. However, I have significant doubts about whether Bishop is notable. I have created a source assessment table of the sources currently in the article, and I previously assessed four others in response to a question at my talk page. An article on this subject has been deleted after a deletion discussion, and has been deleted at various titles over the years (including William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer); this list is from the deletion discussion). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseBlaster and 331dot,

Thank you for your comments. The subjects notability has nothing to do with previous attempts to create the article. I understand your concern but I am convinced he is notable.

All my Love,

TooG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: with respect, it doesn't matter whether you're convinced he's notable; it only matters whether you can objectively demonstrate his notability through sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DoubleGrazing,

I hope you are well and thank you for your message. That is affirmative, I can objectively demonstrate notability through sources.

All my Love, TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: I have deleted your latest additions to this page. Please do not start a new thread, just add to this existing one. And certainly don't add two new threads that are identical. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Which of my additions are you referring to?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know your own edits?! A moment ago you opened two new threads on the bottom of this page, saying:

"The editor HouseBlaster, has stated he has a personal issue with me and my editing. He keeps commenting on and trying interfere with my draft."

Quite apart from everything else, that's not even a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

My apologies, I did not notice that it had been deleted. My page had not updated. I feel it is worth noting that the editor in question has commented that if I re-submit the draft he will force a deletion discussion.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: nothing wrong with that. You should not resubmit a draft that has been rejected; that's what rejection means. And if you do (resubmit), that is just saying that a deletion process will consequently be instigated.

BTW, do you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject? Your user page says you're a paid editor, but it's not clear whether and how that relates to the subject of this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

The editor in question has stated that he does not think I am taking him seriousely. This is a personal issue and nothing to do with me or my draft or Wikipedia. I have been editing the Encyclopedia for a while now and never had a problem like this. It makes me feel bad. The subject of the draft is a musician, and I have been requested by an artist management to write a draft about him. So there is no COI.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: could you please be a little less vague – what is this "artist management" you speak of? What is their relationship to Bishop? And what is their relationship to you, and how come they made such a request? So far it's sounding very much like there probably is a COI, we just need to establish its precise nature.

As for any personal issues between two editors, this isn't something I'm prepared to get involved in, and it also isn't something we can assist with here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Hi I have already declared COI on my user page. I work for his management team. I do not know the artist, or why they made the request.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: yes, I know you had disclosed some paid editing on your user page; my question was whether it relates to Bishop. (I say "had", because for some mysterious reason you've now removed that disclosure.)

And as if that's not enough, you say on one hand that "there is no COI", and on the other that you work for Bishop's (?) management team.

What's going on here? If we can't straighten out this matter ourselves, I'll need to ask an admin to intervene. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topg1985 certainly has a COI.

Topg1985, you are not taking me seriously. I have told you that the answer is no. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring my advice.

You have not provided any reliable sources which contain significant coverage and are independent of Bishop. Do you have any? That is the whole ballgame. If you have multiple, Bishop is notable. If not, he is not. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,

I hope HouseBlaster that you are feeling a little less bad about yourself and have a better feeling of self-worth. I am not sticking my fingers anywhere or ignoring anyone. I have taken onboard what HouseBlaster has said. I have certainly provided such sources, and I can find more if necessary. In HouseBlaster’s analysis he rejects reference 1, but it is listed as reliable on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources for music, and is independant and significant.

There is enough information on Bishop to write an article, and the sources are reliable and independant. When I started writing the page I placed the correct COI template on my userpage, and this was noted. The template stated that I worked for Bishop’s management. I thought it could be removed at anytime. There is no problem there. What exactly is the issue?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: this feels like trying to nail jelly to a wall...

The paid-editing COI disclosure on your user page read as follows:

{{paid|user=Topg1985|employer=Sentric Music|client=Sentric Music}}

Where in that does it say anything about Bishop? And/or where in the Bishop draft does it say anything about Sentric Music? The connection may be perfectly obvious to you, given that you work for them, but it isn't to me, hence my question.

And no, you emphatically may not remove disclosures.

Therefore, the "issue" is that you appear to be a paid editor, without a valid and unambiguous paid-editing disclosure in place. That, and your ongoing badgering of this matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing and HouseBlaster,

I will re-add the template immediately. My concern is that now is that if I edit the draft and re-submit it, then it will automatically be in a deletion discussion, which should not be the case if the subject is notable.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: your disclosure still makes no reference to Bishop.

And you can keep saying as many times as you like that Bishop is notable; that does not make him so, we need actual evidence.

I think I'll have to give up as this is clearly going nowhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is truly notable, the deletion discussion will end with consensus that the subject is notable and it would not be deleted.

Source 1 is the closest we have to a significant coverage in a reliable source, but I am very skeptical that it is truly independent of Bishop. It is almost a verbatim copy from source 2, which according that website's its "about us" section is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent. Therefore, source 1 is either committing plagiarism (which puts its reliability in doubt) or it is copying with permission, in which case the source is not independent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,

I will mention Bishop specifically in the disclosure.

HouseBlaster, source 1 is listed as reliable by Wikipedia. It is independant of Bishop because it does not follow that just because two text share the same information that the same people are involved in their creation. Your skepticism is bordering on bad faith, but I am glad to see you are feeling less insecure!

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster,

In addition source 4 contains significant coverage under the ‘more about’ section. You’ve said the source is reliable and independant already.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 2 don't only share the same information, they share the same wording of the information. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two sources (source 1 is in yellow; source 2 is in blue). Paragraph 1 of source 1:

−

Having a background in literature and poetry, music became second nature. William John Bishop is classically trained as a cellist and double bassist, learning acoustic guitar as a teenager. Influences include Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. William writes on guitar and piano.

+

Having a background in literature and poetry, music became second nature to Will Bishop, despite being a reserved individual, he has gone against the odds performing regularly at music venues writing music, a far cry from his upbringing. William John Bishop is classically trained as a cellist and double bassist, learning acoustic guitar as a teenager. Influences include Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. William writes on guitar and piano.

Paragraph 2 of source 1 appears identically in source 2 (Now signed to Sony Music's The Orchard, William was born in London, attending the Haberdashers Askes' School for Boys where he learned cello and double bass, performing predominantly orchestral works. In London he learned to play guitar wanting to write his own songs and music.). Here is paragraph 3 of source 1 compared to source 2:

−

William moved to Brighton, where his academic text The Love Looks Not With The Eyes But With The Mind was published. He then recorded his first EP, Second Time Around, given critical acclaim by music journalist Bob Leggitt.

+

William moved to Brighton, where his academic text 'The love looks not wit the eyes but with the mind' was published. He then recorded his first EP, Second Time Around, given critical acclaim by music journalist Bob Leggitt.

Either source 1 is committing plagiarism and thus is unreliable (because any editorial standards would forbid plagiarism), or source 1 is copying with permission from source 2 and thus is not independent. (And source 2 was not copying from source 1; source 2 has existed since 2021 and source 1 is dated from 2024.)

I missed the "more about" section; thank you for drawing my attention to it. When I first reviewed the source, I evidently missed a few things. Doing a more thorough review of the source, I have doubts about its reliability (it is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources or the list of perennial sources, and I cannot find any discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard). Even if we assume the source is reliable, that is a single source: we need multiple for notability. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

I still think that if Wikipedia states the source is reliable then it must be reliable, but great analysis.

I have added two further sources which should have enough independant, reliable information for you and I will add more when I find them.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia say source 4 is a reliable source?

I have reviewed the two additional sources you added. qrates contains the same biography from sources 1 and 2, and thus is not independent. ReverbNation might be a reliable source; I don't know. However, it does not appear to be independent: It contains a line talking about Bishop in the first person (I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

I meant to say that Wikipedia lists source 1 as reliable. The sentence you refer to from Reverbnation looks like a typo.

I still have a few more I can add.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I buy that it is a typo; I can't say I have ever heard of someone writing from the first person by mistake. However, I know of plenty of times people are told to write about themselves in the third person (to name just two, biographies for company websites and theater playbill blurbs). The source also sounds like something written by (or at least in collaboration with) Bishop; an independent writer would not know details like [Bishop] didn’t think anything of it at the time.

When Wikipedia says a source is "reliable", we mean "usually reliable". In all cases, the context matters. In fact, a direct quote from the guideline is The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Even though the source might be generally reliable, we can't blindly say it is reliable in all circumstance. If it is copying from a different source, it would inherit the reliability and independence of the original source. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

With regards to your first paragraph, independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article.

With regards to the second paragraph, thank you for the information. In this case I assume the original source is reliable and independant as I can find no direct links to Bishop.

All my Love,

Top G1985 Topg1985 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is taking creative liberties and not reporting factually, it is reporting speculation as fact, which makes it unreliable. Either way, the article does not contribute to notability.

As for source two, as I said above:

according [source 2's about section, it] is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

Taking creative liberties is, I agree, not a report of a fact. Still, that is exactly what journalists do. I don’t think they are reporting speculation as fact, it’s pretty clear it’s just the journalist speculating.

As for chinamix.com, I can find no link to Bishop directly. I don’t wish to argue but how can you be sure ‘they don’t host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinamix.com’? You can’t really say much about the organisation from just a website.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think an independent, reliable source with significant coverage about Bishop would look like?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the time has come to draw a line under this and stop flogging a dead horse. The draft has been rejected, and IMO correctly so. No convincing evidence of notability has been produced, only unsubstantiated claims by a paid editor (whose COI took far too much effort to establish, I might add). The whole thing is becoming tendentious and this thread is looking more and more like bludgeoning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

On the contrary, and with all due respect, I am trying very hard to establish what is meant by a reliable, independant and significant source. So that I may edit Wikipedia in the best way possible. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with paid editing, and I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time without being a paid editor. I can produce a very long list of articles about musicians which use sources which I have been told are unsuitable, but I don’t flirt with controversy or use blunt weaponry.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap articles exist for that argument, there is zero evidence that the artist passes WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Theroadislong,

I hope you are well. Please stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best.

All my Love,

TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William John Titus Bishop. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've blocked Topg1985 indefinitely for any number of reasons apparent in this thread, but DE was simplest. Star Mississippi 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BretDvr (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:PolyAI ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am unclear which of the types of sources I am missing, or which you would like more of. I've linked to several outside sources that discuss PolyAI and its products/work, not just internal websites or press releases. I would be happy to provide more information, but I need to know what to provide. BretDvr (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BretDvr Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Once those are left out, the draft just tells of the routine activities of the company, which does not establish notability. We need sources with significant coverage of your company- coverage that goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me see what I can get. BretDvr (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Monelle (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sonia Malkine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me what "copyrighted information" was included in the article I submitted? I seem to remember being told that the wording was the same as that on Sonia Malkine's website. That website was owned and written by me (Sonia Malkine was my mother). It has since been taken down as a result of having been hacked. Is there any possibility that my article could now be included in Wikipedia? Thank you for your attention. Monelle (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Monelle (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monelle A publication must be CC BY-SA compliant in order for its contents to be copied here and even then the content may not be suitable for use in a Wikipedia article per WP:NOT (more specifically WP:NOTPROMO) and the Neutral point of view policy. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

It follows that writing an article starts by looking for such independent sources, and if they cannot be found, there is no point in going any further. It is unlikely that very much on your mother's website will be relevant to a Wikipedia article ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jadooee (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Jill Viles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received this message," This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.".

I just edited the draft, but I do not want to resubmit and risk it getting deleted if the issues are still present. Is there a way I can ask for it to be reviewed without penalty? Jadooee (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't do pre-review reviews here. The best way to get feedback is to submit it. As long as you are making progress and there is a chance the issues can be resolved, you shouldn't have an issue. I will say that the draft is loaded with promotional language("stands as a remarkable figure who has astounded many scientists and health professionals"; "she achieved the extraordinary feat", etc). An article should be written as dry and matter of fact as possible, without embellishments. Much of the draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see WP:BLP.

Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

• Amitunbind (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Saral Home ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Can you please suggest me what should i remove from my article? Amitunbind (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitunbind: I've requested for the lot of it to be removed. Please do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ephrem-IRB (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:The Independent Regulatory Board (IRB) of the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because the article I submitted was not accepted. I would like some one to review the article I submitted. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephrem-IRB: your draft (not yet article) has been reviewed, and declined. We're not interested in what the organisation has to say about itself. We want to know what other, entirely unconnected sources have said about it.

Also, you need to disclose your status as a paid editor. I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I don't want to be paid anything. I just wanted to give information about a regional organization in the Eastern Africa. Kindly advise. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephrem-IRB: I'm saying you are being paid, because of your employment at this organisation, and our terms & conditions of use require you to formally disclose this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct I am an employee of the organization that I wanted to give information. Where can I disclose that please. Thank you. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided with instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get it clearly. Where can I correct those things? Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "did not get it clearly". Can you not find the message on your talk page, or do you not understand it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Write a statement on your user page, User:Ephrem-IRB, in which you say something to the effect of "Per the Terms of Use, I declare that I am an employee of the Independent Regulatory Board of the Eastern Africa Power Pool". 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is rejected. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new section for new posts, please use this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephrem-IRB You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia and what we do here. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. An article about an organization must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the organization or basic informaton(like staff) and goes into detail about what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the topic- what makes it notable. Press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, staff interviews, and the like do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it's even harder with a conflict of interest. You must set aside everything you know about your organization and all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 136.233.52.242 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Sielmat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was notified that "I can now create articles myself without posting a request". I have created and moved this page Sielmat. Yet I am not sure if it is the same as publishing an article for creation since I cannot find this article in Google Search. Do inform me in this regard.

136.233.52.242 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New articles won't be indexed by search engines until they have been approved by new page patrol, or until 90 days have passed, whichever comes sooner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any such way to submit a "request for approval" to this new page patrol? Thanks. Puia 98 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Puia 98: new pages get added automatically into the pool for reviewing, there is nothing you need to (or indeed can) do to request this. There is currently a large backlog of over 14,000 articles awaiting review, so this could take a while. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A smart kitten (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Who Nose? ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across this draft from the talk page of the IP editor that submitted it. It was declined by Dan arndt as failing WP:DISAMBIG; however, it seems to be a valid disambiguation page from what I can see, and the entries seem to meet MOS:DABENTRY. Posting here to request a second set of eyes. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the article doesn’t disambiguate to any other Wikipedia articles, just to a series of unrelated things. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pep.maps2020 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Pep Figueiredo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request your assistance in approval of this profile page. Pep.maps2020 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that has no meaning and literally resembles a fan page. As per @CanonNi:, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotional website. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MarGiann (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Polycentric Approach to the Management of Urban Waters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I am trying to publish the article "Polycentric Approach to the Management of Urban Waters . However it does not seem to work. Could you please help me further with that? Thanks a lot in advance. MarGiann (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarGiann: this draft was declined for being non-encyclopaedic, both in structure and content. As such, it would require a fairly comprehensive rewrite.

Also worth noting that it was declined nearly six months ago, and is very soon eligible for speedy deletion as an abandoned draft. So if you do plan to continue editing it, you should do so sooner rather than later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the fast response. I have considerably edited the document and I wanted to resubmit. However, I get to receive this message.

"No stashed content found for 1181823001/bad43be9-91aa-11ee-b2d6-4cd98fa9ea25"

I think it is a technincal issue but I am not sure what exactly is the problem. MarGiann (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarGiann: yes, it is a technical issue, and as such outside the scope of this help desk, but AFAIK it has to do with the browser losing the local stash (temporary content store) where the edits you make reside until they are committed by publishing the draft. This happens if the browser is left open for a long time or something goes wrong with your system. Some browsers apparently are better at recovering such data, but you getting that error message suggests it may be lost for good. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arinc9 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Sir Sam Walker ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft that I have submitted is not an attempt to be humorous, nor is it a hoax. We have collectively decided on RIPE NCC's SEE 12 event that creating this page would be helpful in addressing the misinformation for anyone accessing the internet. At least Vesna Manojlovic from RIPE NCC, Daniele Bovio from the European Academic & Research Network (EARN), and François Flückiger from CERN have endorsed this action.

I am submitting this while at the Divani Caravel Hotel. You can prove that by running whois on the IP address that I use to submit this. The SEE 12 event is being hosted in this hotel. Arinc9 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of your sources mention him? Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting my reply here as well:

No, all of the sources documented here mention this person. You can refer to World Wide Web to confirm that this Sir Sam Walker person does not exist in the context of the creating of the World Wide Web. Arinc9 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arinc9: so you're submitting a draft with four sources each saying Walker is one of the creators of WWW, to prove that isn't the case? So far the evidence only seems to show that is the case!

Besides, four passing mentions (which is what they are) would not make him notable enough to justify an article.

If you want to create an article on (what I think is) your intended topic, you would need to first show that there are numerous sources incorrectly claiming something (which is what you've done, sort of), then cite reliable evidence refuting this, and then show that this misinformation (disinformation?) is being widely enough discussed in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable to warrant an encyclopaedia article on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

If you can find several sources discussing whether Walker exists or not, then there may be an article possible. But if you can find only mentions of him then he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there cannot be an article about him. (Note that this is quite independent of whether he exists or not: Wikipedia has articles on many notable but non-existent subjects, such as unicorns, N-rays and the luminiferous aether.)

Furthermore, even if he is notable, then your assertion that he does not exist appears to be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rincemermaid (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Fidos Awards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I write these sentences in a neutral tone: The For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, or FIDOS, is a UK film awards event created by Toby Rose. It celebrates performances by dogs as well as recognize canine talents in films. It's the sister award to the Palm Dog awards, which was also created by Toby Rose in 2001 and held at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France. Both events were inspired by Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt. Founded by cinema journalist Toby Rose in 2007, the first annual Fidos Awards presentation was held as a part of The Times London Film Festival at the BFI on the South Bank on October 28, 2007. The event is now held in March. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: words like "celebrates", "inspired", and to a slightly lesser extent "talents" are quite peacocky or marketing blurb-y. Replace them with the most boring, dry synonyms you can think of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit for the first sentence: The FIDOS, or For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, is a film awards ceremony in the UK founded by Toby Rose. It honors dogs' performances and acknowledges their skills in movies. The Palm Dog awards, a related event created by Rose in 2001, takes place at the Cannes Film Festival in France and is considered the sister award to the FIDOS. These awards were created in honor of Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt.   Rincemermaid (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NMDP (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Erik Della Penna ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello--I have made changes that the previous reviewer suggested, but I also want to leave a message for the next prospective reviewer showing how the subject of this article meets the requirements of notability of composers and lyricists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) This subject meets criteria #1 and #2, but I think the reviewers have been missing this. Where would I leave such a comment after I resubmit the article? Thanks! NMDP (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NMDP: you can leave comments on the draft talk page; I will add a note highlighting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VM. NMDP (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. NMDP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NMDP: Given you have 53 sources it may very well be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We don't cite Discogs (no editorial oversight). Discogs, like Wikipedia, is entirely user-generated content.
• https://www.berkshireeagle.com/arts_and_culture/berkshirelandscapes/spencertown-academy-roots-and-shoots-concert-rachelle-garniez-erik-della-penna/article_04f0a51c-d7d7-11ed-841d-27eb9e4fbcd3.html seems okay.
• I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/theater/dead-outlaw-audible.html (walled). https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/theater/dead-outlaw-review.html likewise is walled to me.
• https://www.aol.com/musical-dead-outlaw-oklahoma-robber-142236491.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Barely discusses Della Penna, being mainly about the stageplay.
• https://playbill.com/article/wet-brain-leads-2024-lucille-lortel-award-nominations-read-the-complete-list is useless for notability (too sparse). Merely being nominated for an award confers no special boon to notability; they have to win it.
• https://www.theatermania.com/news/2024-drama-league-award-nominations-announced_1737887/ is a non-sequitur and even if it weren't it has the exact same issues as the Playbill source.
• https://americansongwriter.com/the-antique-garde-songwriters-of-new-york-city/ looks good.
• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/holy-roller-joan-osborne-47920/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Della Penna.
• We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight). Wiki.
• We can't use any of the Allmusic sources you cite (too sparse). From our perennial sources page: Listings without accompanying prose do not count towards notability, and as a rule content-free profiles have no information to cite regardless of where they are published.
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/07/04/kill-henry-sugar-sell-this/daac1261-a4d4-4c6e-8d30-d0731f408b77/ is borderline. While it does discuss his work in Kill Henry Sugar, it's a very short article overall.
• https://www.westword.com/arts/circus-saga-5075035 is useless for notability (no editorial oversight). The biggest problem with citing news stories (or, really, anything else) about an event that predate the event is the possibility that the events they're discussing won't happen due to whatever reason: a plane crashed, venue didn't remove brown M&Ms, performer committed pater familicide, etc.
• We can't use Surprise Truck (too sparse. Very short article with barely anything to cite. I should also note that unless the source discusses Della Penna specifically articles which are more about Kill Henry Sugar are not going to be particularly helpful as a source for an article on Della Penna.
• https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/joan-baez-returns-to-her-acoustic-roots-in-new-2558789.php is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an interview with a collaborator.
• https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/joan-baez-barbican-london-6106875.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Della Penna.
• https://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2023-02-20/37930/Hazmat-Modine-on-the-EOH-Main-Stage is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't we couldn't cite it as it's an obvious advertorial (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/arts/music/migrations-the-making-of-america-immigration.html is 404-compliant. (It gives me a blank page.)
• https://www.broadwayworld.com/miami/article/KITTY-HAWK-Returns-to-the-Arsht-Center-for-Its-Third-Season-20191014 is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Della Penna.
• https://www.broadway.com/buzz/203921/dead-outlaw-world-premiere-musical-from-the-bands-visit-team-extends-run/ " " " " (" "). "-", " " " " ".

You have two okay sources, and the rest of the ones I can assess are a combination of name-drops, Discogs, and Allmusic content-free album profiles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jéské Couriano. Thank you for your time on this and your comments. My thought is that Della Penna seems to qualify as a notable composer/lyricist under Wikipedia's own criteria:

• WP:COMPOSER

For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (e.g., musicals, operas) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.

Wikipedia:Notability (music)

He has written the music and lyrics to a musical that was performed in the famed off-Broadway theater--The Minetta Lane Theater. It ran for seven weeks and now is being nominated for awards (the winners have not been chosen yet).

Should I just make it a short article about him being a composer/lyricist and take out all the other information about him being a guitarist/songwriter? NMDP (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NMDP: Remember when I said above that it may be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat? Two sources out of 51 being good (discounting the two walled NYT sources) is a problem for any draft, since it means that reviewers aren't going to bother approving the article as the sourcing is still very noticeably subpar. All the extraneous sources other than the Berkshire Eagle, American Songwriter, and (potentially) the two walled New York Times sources need to be removed, and the draft rewritten based on the sources that remain. Bear in mind WP:BLP applies here as well, which makes the useless sources even more of a liability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll give that a shot. Thank you. NMDP (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely thinking about references differently. I was thinking that references had to "prove" each fact in the article. So for example the SFGate article and the Independent article "prove" Della Penna played in Joan Baez's band, but you're saying it's just name-dropping--that wikipedia requires more. Again--thanks. NMDP (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely thinking about references differently. I was thinking that references had to "prove" each fact in the article. So for example the SFGate article and the Independent article "prove" Della Penna played in Joan Baez's band, but you're saying it's just name-dropping--that wikipedia requires more. Will work on it. NMDP (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC NMDP (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in and note that the first New York Times article is substantial coverage of Della Penna as a part of Dead Outlaw, but the second only provides a brief mention of a group Della Penna was in without mentioning him by name. Reconrabbit 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm wondering if I can get more specifics on how to address the suggestion of making this more "encyclopedic" rather than an "essay" and also specific points where I should revise from having an opinion to being neutral? Thank you for the guidance. 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty finding any of your sources which actually meet the triple criterion in WP:42. All of them I've looked at are either published by the subject, or mention them without saying very much about them. The last couple don't even mention it.

This means, it seems to me, that your draft does not yet establish that the Union meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Furthermore, if there are no independent sources which say anything substantial about the Union, then there is nothing that can go in the article - which is probably why it reads as an essay.

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 108.6.176.12 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ian in Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was declined for being mostly a copy paste of Hurricane Ian, but a discussion at Talk:Hurricane Ian determined a consensus for a split and trimming down of the main section. The draft should be accepted because it reflects consensus. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article splits are not usually done via this process; see WP:PROSPLIT for the procedure. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reviewer simply wasn't aware of that split discussion (an easy thing to overlook, if you ask me). Courtesy pinging Shadow311. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaw54 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Gaw54/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PLEASE HELP!!!! I have made multiple edits to this page and published them. Then someone seems to reject my article and now all my edits have disappeared. I am beyond frustrated. Gaw54 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: your draft has only been declined, not rejected, and that does not make edits "disappear" (as you can see yourself from the edit history). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But my edits DID disappear. I made a number of new edits yesterday and today, published them, and then when I went back to look at the document, they were gone. Moreover, one of the objections to the article was that I needed to use footnotes. There are 23 footnotes in this article! I simply don't understand the basis for the article being declined. This was written to respond to the call of the Women Artists Project to fill the gap between the presence of male and female artists on Wikipedia. With this kind of experience, I can understand why. I've spent over a week on this entry and I still don't understand why it is being declined or how I can it before a reviewer who might actually know something about the subject and provide more useful feedback. Gaw54 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: I'm not saying your edits didn't disappear. Maybe your browser crashed. Maybe your computer (or whatever device you're editing on) did. Maybe you didn't publish your edits. All I'm saying is, declining (or rejecting, for that matter) a draft does not cause anything to vanish. Not that I'm aware of, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54 As explained below, you are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Please only edit one of them to avoid confusion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Explorer Hamza (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Shakeba Umar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

not able to understand rejection , please guide how to submit Explorer Hamza (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explorer Hamza: articles on living people (WP:BLP) need to be referenced with inline citations, so that it's clear where each bit of the content is coming from; see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. (I don't think that's the only issue with this draft, but it's the one it was declined for.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explorer Hamza: As to your sources proper, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We can't use https://www.wef.org.in/shakeba-umar/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this?
• We don't cite LinkedIn (connexion to subject). LinkedIn profiles are written by or on behalf of the LinkedIn account holder.
• I cannot assess either PDF (incompetent).
• Literally every Denzal Foundation and Shakebaumar.com source is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://ngodetails.com/india/orissa/denzal-foundation/ (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• https://www.hindustanbytes.com/in2futurecom-honored-educationalists-educational-organization-at-international-innovative-education-summit-iies-on-27th-march-2022-at-oaks-ibn-battuta-gate-dubai is useless for notability (too sparse). Name in a massive list of awardees for a non-exclusive award. Non-exclusive awards as a rule tend to mean nothing for notability.
• https://www.hindustanmetro.com/in2future-com-honored-educationalists-educational-organization-at-international-innovative-education-summit-iies-on-27th-march-2022-at-oaks-ibn-battuta-gate-dubai/ was discussed and dismissed; it's a carbon copy of the HindustanBytes source.
• https://spotlatest.com/uncategorized/foxclues-india-top-100-women-icon-awards-third-list-announced/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name in a list for a non-exclusive award.

The overwhelming majority of your sources are unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Max Elliott1 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Karry G ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mayday friends, could you help me understand why my page was not approved? I have not much experience in creating pages, and maybe I really missed something. Please help. Thanks, gracias, danke, merci, shukran, дякую Max Elliott1 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Elliott1: it was declined because it is unreferenced. (A quick glance suggests there are other issues, too, but that's why it was declined this time around.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Max. I'm afraid that that is the usual experience for people who attempt to create an article before they have spent the time learning how Wikipedia works. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and gradually learning about core principles like verifiability, reliale sources, neutral point of view and notability, before ever trying the challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaw54 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done that. I think the process may have been interrupted by someone reviewing and responding the draft before I publish the changes. I just tried again and hope that this works. On a related note, I tried entering tags but got the message that no page existed by the title of my article. Suggestions? Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent considerable time on my entry on artist and curator Bonnie Rychlak. I am very confused about the basis of it being declined. I was told that my inline citations were not correctly but that I should footnotes. I'm very confused. There are 25 footnotes on the cite. Also, I tried without success to tag the page Women Artists and Women Writers in order that it get to editors in best position to provide valuable feedback. But when I attempted to tag the page, I received the notice that no such page with the title Bonnie Rychlak exists. Please advise. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated these sections. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. Can you please clarify why one reviewer believes this individual doesn't meet the notability standard? She has a highly respected career in TWO fields both as artist and curator. She is one of the top experts on the artist Noguchi with over a dozen key publications and multiple international exhibitions. Moreover, she has co-exhibited with another artist who has a Wiki page, and was written about by a top critic/curator who also has a Wiki page. I'm trying to help fill the gap in entries on male and female artists on Wikipedia and am dismayed to find any number of male artists whose accomplishments don't hold a candle to those of this individual. I would very much appreciate any guidance on this matter. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: I don't think anyone is saying that this person categorically isn't notable, but rather that notability hasn't yet been adequately demonstrated. You need to show, and corroborate with reliable sources, that they satisfy either the general WP:GNG notability standard, or the special WP:ARTIST one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, Gaw54, prose like As a feminist riposte to the embargoes of Donald Judd and others, her sculptures converted primary structures into upholstered, pillowed, buttoned, and bowed boxes. This decorative re-surfacing was a paradoxical suggestion of depth. Padded and essentially wrapped, the cubes acquired an inside or at least the lure of an inside. But the interior was never accessible or even fully present. Unlike Judd's polished objects that push the viewer out centrifugally, Rychlak's impel one's gaze away from the sculptures by replicating their surroundings. Her mirrors force the viewer to look inside the box to see not only the duplicated surroundings but also the perceiving subject, thus providing the elusive "content." is not the way an encyclopedia article should be written. This hifalutin prose style obscures and intrigues perhaps, and may be appreciated in certain corners of academia, but it is not the crisp, clear language of descriptive encyclopedia writing. Your prose must be accessible to newcomers to your topic, not just to enthusiasts and insiders. Do not make your readers respond with "what the heck?" Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. Actually, this is exactly what one reviewer is saying "Please provide sources for the public collections, notability hinges on this." That seems pretty categorial to me, given that the collections where her work can be seen don't have online collection access. And this is the first time this criteria was mentioned, despite previous reviews of the piece by this specific editor. It just seems like the bar for acceptance keeps moving. I think that the 25 sourced references, including multiple highly regarded publications and exhibitions, has been easily established. I'm at a loss as to what more is being asked for to pass this hurdle. Gaw54 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that is being asked is that you provide sources for the content, it's an absolute basic necessity of editing Wikipedia, if the awards and collections are not sourced then we can't confirm that they pass the notability criteria WP:NARTIST, merely having exhibitions doesn't make them a notable artist. Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaw54 More “what the heck?” content includes Visibility is low, so low that if images are discerned at all, they are reduced to a wavering generality. The image inside the clean white box, reminiscent of medicine cabinets, can be read as banal or sinister, or just mysterious., If this is a quote then it needs a source if it is your own opinion it should be removed as original research. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamu ab (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Dela Yawo Seade ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why are requesting assistant Adamu ab (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adamu ab, your draft was declined because the writing is too promotional. However, I think this was an incorrect decline, as I also do not find that the subject passes our notability guidelines. Please see WP:NBIO for these guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

• 김낙회 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kim Nack Hoi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submission of this article has been rejected. I would like to know why my draft submission was rejected. I would also like to ask for advice on how to solve this problem. 김낙회 (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@김낙회: as it says in the decline notice (did you read that, by any chance?), the draft is insufficiently referenced, which is to say it is completely unreferenced, since the only alleged reference isn't actually a reference at all. Articles on living people must be comprehensively supported with inline referencing to reliable published sources; see WP:BLP for more info on this, and WP:REFB for advice on referencing. Appropriate referencing is also a requirement for notability, see WP:GNG, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaliper1 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Hirohara Shrine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A non-authorised move was done from Draftspace to Mainspace, by User:WC gudang inspirasi , done without the nesecity reviewing processes or done by an authorised reviewer (ie. admin, oth.) (See: history) The same user have done the same act with two other articles. indeed this would be a WP:AFCREVIEW case and thus not valid I assume, so i reverted and move my drafts submition back to Draftspace. Thus for my question is, would this affect my submission? Cheers. Kaliper1 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: rest assured, that move or your return move, does not affect the AfC review process or the draft's prospects in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well thats good to know,

however my draft assessment still holds the id 'redirect' and the draft isnt appearing in my selected WikiProjects's Draft-Class Pages for review (that is in Architecture, Japan, and Indonesia). Is there a way to fix this? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking into my draft's source editing to rechange the assesment scale. I then tried to re-add manually to the wikiprojects's drafts list for review. yet I cant seem to find a way to fix this.. I'm hoping its not permanent, is it? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, what "draft assessment", and what "id 'redirect'"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing yes, I mean the assesments here if im not mistaken. When drafts are sent or submitted, its supposed to be a draft class article. Now due to the erroneous move by said user, what supposed to be the draft article becomes a redirect class article. Thus I fear that due to this, it renders the review process harder to do so since in wikiprojects, it would not show up in draft articles if im not wrong? (eg. when searching up the drafts class articles in wikiproject Japan, Indonesia, and Architecture for 'Hirohara' it doesnt appear. it did before the move..)

sorry for my wording. my first language sadly is not english. really sorry! Kaliper1 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I did ask for a review by the Assesment Department however. To change back to draft class. (WP:WPWP/ASSESS) Kaliper1 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok really sorry for the confusion!

Update: I've managed to re-add my draft to the given wikiprojects after deleting and re-adding the tags. and Now for the Assesment, I think that would change after review process once the draft is accepted. Thus, problem mostly solved!

Terima Kasih! - Kaliper1 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: don't worry about the ratings for now, they only become relevant if/when the draft is accepted. (And FWIW, I believe they were at draft class when I looked earlier, and are the same now, so look to be in order.) Yes, in theory adding WikiProject tags to a draft may draw some attention from the projects in question, but in practice this seldom results in anything, and in any case won't affect the draft's passage through the AfC review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've warned the user, asking them to stop moving drafts past AfC; turns out this wasn't their first one, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IRKTC (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Krungthai Card ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I know the reason for the rejection of the submission due to being a company profile with referenced information? IRKTC (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IRKTC: this draft hasn't been rejected yet, only declined, although it will be rejected if you keep resubmitting without any attempt to improve it.

The reasons for the earlier declines are given in the decline notice, specifically inside the grey boxes.

I believe you are an employee or agent of this company. Please disclose your paid-editing status per the message I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRKTC First, if you work for this company(I note you claim to have personally created the logo, more on that in a second) you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that, see WP:PAID, and also WP:COI.

Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do- we are interested in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it. This does not include press releases, interviews, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. The "vision" section is wholly unencyclopedic and should be removed.

You claim to have personally created the logo of the company- if you did, okay- but I assume that you did so just to upload it to Commons; by doing this you are indicating that you want to make the logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. This would mean that someone could take your company logo, print it on shirts, sell them, and your company would not entitled to any money from the sale of its own logo. If you don't want to do that, or don't have the authority to decide that, you should immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons. Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. That does carry some restrictions, such as not being able to be in drafts- but images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until and if the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and content like "We also cultivate a culture of Trusted Organization to meet the expectations and build confidence among stakeholders, ensuring sustainable growth." is totally inappropriate marketing speak. I'm surprised it hasn't been rejected already. Theroadislong (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IRKTC: All of your sources are unusable. We don't cite stock tickers and everything from the company's website is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I'll also echo my colleagues that this reads more like a brochure aimed at potential investors than a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article aimed at Ubon from Bangkok. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Amirdelv (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:The Mars (Indian TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can i improve this article Amirdelv (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirdelv: by addressing the reasons for the decline(s). Your referencing is pretty useless, and fails to both establish notability and verify the draft contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you suggest me some sites for movie or tv series reference? where i can search for this series. Amirdelv (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirdelv: no, I cannot, as I've no knowledge of or interest in Indian television. You should be citing the sources where you got this information from, and if those sources aren't reliable (as is the case here), then we couldn't accept this draft anyway. Which is another way of saying that you should be basing the information on reliable and independent sources, and merely summarising what they have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to create an article on a subject, then your very first task, before you do anything else, should be to find several reliable, independent sources, that treat the subject in some depth - see golden rule for the criteria you should apply to each source.

The reason that this should be your very first task is that if you cannot find such sources, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteris for notability, and the article will never be acceptable. If this is the case, then every single second that you have spent doing anything on the draft other than looking for sources has been time and effort completely wasted. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amirdelv is a paid editor so the value of that time depends on whether TRK Studios are paying them by the hour. It is definitely wasting the time of multiple reviewers, though. Belbury (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me some time to locate the source. Amirdelv (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FF184 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Joanna Settle ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know what to do to exactly improve the article for publication. Currently all citation of evidence are correct and included. FF184 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FF184: I couldn't understand when I reviewed this, and still don't understand now, what makes this person notable, ie. on what basis is notability being asserted? You need to show how they meet one of the defined notability standards, either the general WP:GNG or a special one eg. WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 137.22.176.98 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Franks Waffle ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not really too sure how I can change this for it to be approved. 137.22.176.98 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Usr TC17 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Tenderstories ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning, I need help identifying a reliable source. In the first submission, I provided 50 sources, while in the second, I provided less than 10. Could you please provide me with an example of a reliable source from among these? I have many articles and interviews about Tenderstories in film magazines and online newspapers. Could you assist me? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usr TC17: I don't think the reviewer was saying that your sources are unreliable, but rather that the draft is not adequately supported by referencing, with much of the content without citations.

If you want to understand what we mean by reliable sources more generally, see WP:RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if the citations from the sources are in Italian but translated in English? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usr TC17: non-English sources are fine, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. standards.

Having said which, I did wonder why it is that all the sources are in Italian, given that the company is UK-based? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company is UK-based, but its productions take place in Italy for films that are primarily released in the Italian market. Let me know if this is an issue. Usr TC17 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Not a problem, I was just being curious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 193.60.60.68 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Natural Resources Institute ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We're having trouble understanding which sections need reliable sources and which sources aren't considered reliable. Could you provide an example? 193.60.60.68 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", accounts are strictly single person use. Wikipedia has little interest in unsourced, promotional mission statements, activities and organisation details. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend finding 2 published independent sources that have in-depth coverage of Natural Resources Institute, put them in the article. If you find those and ping me and point them out I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mantascool44 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Mantascool44/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone make a description of the brand? I am the owner of the NANO GO brand, founder, 100% shareholder and director of NANOGO DETAILING. Mantascool44 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory, so a company is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. In the specific case of a company, it must meet the notability criteria for companies and organizations. For this to happen, the company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We have no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, as this is an inherent conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an answer. Mantascool44 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OP now blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 207.237.186.122 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Martin Cabrera ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Helping to clarify edits that need to be made. 207.237.186.122 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every link you provide for your citations are malformed and point to HTTP 404 errors. The sole exception is to a PR Newswire piece, which is useless for notability as PR Newswire only ever publishes press releases (connexion to subject). Fix your links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the links myself to assess them (protip: "/amp/title" breaks URLs) the lot of them are worthless.

• We can't use https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/march-2012/100-most-powerful-chicagoans-martin-cabrera-jr/ (too sparse). Too short to cite.
• https://inroads.org/martin-cabrera-ceo-and-founder-cabrera-capital-markets/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The first sentence describes him as "an INROADS alumnus".
• https://www.cct.org/our-community/profile/martin-cabrera-jr/ is useless for notabiliy (connexion to subject). He serves on CCT's board.
• https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/program-teaches-chicago-students-financial-literacy-with-real-money/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Quotes from him, no actual discussion of Cabrera.

You need better sources across-the-board. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Cabrera at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous editorial oversight, including fact-checking. Without sources that meet those criteria, we can't even discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 45.62.186.1 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Punch (website) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hiii! I'm trying to understand which of the references are why this draft got rejected and why so I know what to change! Thank you! 45.62.186.1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on your article. The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. To meet this it needs to meet either meet the requirements of an applicable special notability guideline (which IMO is not an option for your subject) or meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources (occasionally 1 will do) which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaitlynnellis (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Haley A. Vlach ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am editing my draft page and want to know what portions need more references. Kaitlynnellis (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaitlynnellis: All of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fastbean (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Post News ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand how these cannot be better sources - they are primary sources - announcements made by the CEO for the most part. Unless a company is large, it's executives in the media, or they somehow capture the zeitgeist, I'm not sure that there is much chance of independent sources that are not derived directly from the company of interest.

For example, here's a news story about the announced closure of Post: https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2024/04/22/post-social-platform/

That news story quotes the Post post that I used as a reference. Is this somehow a more reliable source? fastbean (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastbean Wikipedia may not base articles upon primary sources. Wikipedia is dependent upon secondary sources.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

We have no interest in what the CEO says about Post News. We need to know what is said by others about it. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NWUCU (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Petros Koutrakis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you provide examples of what primary sources are examples of reliable sources? I do believe that this article makes it clear that the subject has had a notable impact on the field of study, which should satisfy the academic-specific criteria at least in part. I am looking for ways to meaningfully strengthen the article before resubmission. Thank you! NWUCU (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NWUCU: Have you read WP:NACADEMIC? (Academics have a somewhat different standard since the vast majority of them, if they're properly doing their jobs, don't make the headlines.) The page explains how best to prove its various prongs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

• Elina Lovtsova (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Linebet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon, please tell us in more detail what the reason for the refusal was, were links to independent sources such as The Mail & Guardian provided, or were not enough sources provided? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is us? User accounts are strictly for single person use. You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Lovtsova The sources don't just have to be independent, they must provide significant coverage of the subject, describing how they see the company as important/significant/influential- what we call the definition of a notable company. That your company has a "brand ambassador" is not significant coverage- that is a routine business activity. You have no sources with significant coverage of your company, they just serve to document its existence and activities. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Marco Novecento33 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Albugnano DOC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have prepared the draft, but it is not approved because there are not enough reliable sources, but I mentioned the only one I can provide (the official page of The Italian ministry), as it was done for the Italian wiki page on the same wine. What should I do to have my draft approved? Marco Novecento33 (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Novecento33 The Italian Wikipedia is a different and separate project from the English Wikipedia; each version has its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. If there are no more sources available, this topic would not merit an article here at this time. If it is considered to be acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia, I suggest that you focus your efforts there; there is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Insomnik (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:SceptersReboot ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i want this to be public Insomnik (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Insomnik: okay, well, it won't be, because it has been rejected and will therefore not be considered any further. Sorry. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Xa45b (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Reliance Global Corporate Security ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I write this article in a neutral way. And help me in sentence improvement Xa45b (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any alternative ? Xa45b (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xa45b: have you previously edited under different accounts, such as Nittin Das? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no sir, I do not any alternate account Xa45b (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am a college student. I am just interested in private military company like sadat and blackwater. I just interested in military related topic. Xa45b (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. I would suggest that you gain some more experience by editing existing articles before attempting to write a new one. You may also want to use the new user tutorial as well. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so willing to extend good faith after looking into this. Draft has been tagged G4 (XfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Reliance Global Corporate Security), and I'm hearing a lot of quacking from Xa45b - enough that I've asked for the redirect to be XCP'd since he's already hijacked it once and will likely be autoconfirmed in a couple days' time barring administrator intervention. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosanna321 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Formation of the IRGC and the first liberation movement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need to know why it was declined specifically, how is it not posted as a Wikipedia article? Rosanna321 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's written in the style of an essay giving the views of the writer, not as a neutral encyclopedia article summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic. I'd suggest that you edit the article about the IGRC if it has any missing information. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosanna321: This draft falls into a contentious topic (post-1978 Iranian politics), as would any edits about the IGRC. Be extremely careful. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 07:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

• Student7y335 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Bedrock (investment firm) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am curious as to why this has been rejected as it meets the requirements for noteworthiness. The page now has over 21 independent primary references. The fund itself is significantly larger in terms of Assets Under Management than dozens of other funds listed on Wikipedia, many of which have less than 5 references.

Many less notable firms with far fewer references are found here Category:Venture capital firms of the United States

For example: Many pages have not even raised any money, or have raised less than $20 million. Bedrock has $2 billion in assets under management.

Please revisit and consider publishing, or provide more detailed guidance. Should I continue adding references? Student7y335 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student7y335 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that themselves could be problematic has no bearing on your draft. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.

Your sources all describe the routine activities of the company, or are interviews with staff, which does not establish notability. Please see the advice left by reviewers. That the company has a lot of assets is completely irrelevant in terms of notability, unless independent reliable sources discuss the significance of that fact. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that....The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. For this case it needs to meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RygelD (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:2003 UA414 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was translating an article (for the first time), however, all that I was translating was data from a source that was updated since the original French article was written. Am I supposed to update the original article before doing this one? RygelD (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RygelD: in short, no. There is no obligation on you to update the French article. Nor is there a requirement that the corresponding article in each language version of Wikipedia is equally current, or that they present the exact same information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RajiKL (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Panjab Radio ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing the Wiki page for Panjab Radio but it has been rejected. It is a simple edit to state what the organisation is and how it is broadcasting in the UK. It is in a neutral viewpoint and not contradicting the Wiki rules. Where am i going wrong? RajiKL (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RajiKL: it isn't enough to show that this organisation exists, we need to see why it is worthy of inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. We determine that by looking for evidence of notability, which in simple terms means that the subject has been covered in multiple secondary sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have edited the page with references and formatting. Please take a look. RajiKL (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RajiKL The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? I see that you claim to have personally created the logo of the radio station- be aware that by doing so and uploading it to Commons you have made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every comment, just add to your earlier one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not just state what the organization does. They should summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about it and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexhoffman2304 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Syft Analytics (company) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to know which sources from our reference list are considered unreliable. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexhoffman2304: this draft wasn't declined for unreliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability (which among other things requires sources to be reliable, but there is much more to it than that). None of the sources cited meets the WP:GNG standard required for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I will find better sources to show notability. Alexhoffman2304 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 174.76.113.10 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamyl...serine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i cant see word 174.76.113.10 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are asking here, but the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arnavgochuswami (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Balkishan Agrawal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi Arnavgochuswami (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you have a question about your draft that was rejected? 331dot (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnavgochuswami:: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 143.58.185.214 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Mo Tighsazzadeh ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

My article was deleted with no clear explanation. I was told to provide more references, but upon checking I no longer have access to add the references. Could you please help?

Many thanks, Nicola 143.58.185.214 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nicola,

Your draft was deleted as it was unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please note that Wikipedia prohibits any kind of promotion. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a venue to advertise a subject.

You can request your draft to be temporarily undeleted at WP:REFUND if you want to work on it further, but please keep the above rule in mind.

Please read What Wikipedia Is Not before you proceed, though.

Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeremiah97478 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Cures for the Neurodivergent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am asking for the deleiton of this page, thank you. Jeremiah97478 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Aazir111 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Aazir111/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cool Aazir111 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aazir111: that's not a question, and your draft isn't much of a draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clay2004 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Dennis Loughran ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to find some good sources. What are some good places to look for non in-universe material? Clay2004 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clay2004: it seems you're going about this the wrong way. You shouldn't write what you know about a subject, and then try to find sources to back up what you've said. You need to start by first finding a few (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria, and write your draft by summarising what they've said, citing each source against the information it has provided. This gives you appropriate content and necessary references, along with proof of notability all in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

• Boingit (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Guy Waterman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted this draft early, assuming that since the queue is months long, I could work on it for a few days improving references before anyone looked at it. I was surprised when I was warned that it could be deleted after hitting publish just the 2nd or 3rd time. Am I doing something wrong to work this way? I expect to be complete and ready for review in a few days. I believe drafts may be improved up to the time they're reviewed. Thanks! Boingit (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boingit: just to make sure we're using the same terminology, when you're working on a draft and have made your edits, you click on the 'publish changes' button, which saves your edits. (It's only called 'publish' rather than 'save' to make the point that your edits will be publicly visible to everyone on the internet.) You can keep doing this as many times and for as long as you like.

When you feel that the draft is ready for publication, you click on the '(re)submit' button, which puts it into the pool of pending drafts, and a reviewer will at some point pick it up and assess it. You should obviously only submit your draft when you think it's ready, because the review can happen at any time, sometimes in a space of minutes, sometimes weeks or even months. (The system is not a 'queue', put rather a 'pool', as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order.)

Hope that makes sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, @DoubleGrazing, I think I get it now. I'll keep polishing and publishing but won't re-submit until I've gotten it where I want it and answered all concerns. Boingit (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MusicSoundsGoodAgency (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Rinaly ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need help with Citations. I read through the rules and have added some but I want to make sure this gets approved first before applying again. Looking for any help as this is my first article! MusicSoundsGoodAgency (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MusicSoundsGoodAgency: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will need to submit your draft to get it reviewed. That said, I can tell you already now that it will be declined, as there is far too much unreferenced information. Articles on living people must be comprehensively referenced, with every material statement, anything potentially contentious and all private personal details clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. And speaking of reliable sources, a WordPress blog is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and Last.fm is actually deprecated and must not be cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 175.139.211.236 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:OG Das ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PLEASE REVIEW AGAIN 175.139.211.236 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 140.141.4.72 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Liberal Zionism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure as to why my article was rejected. 140.141.4.72 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't rejected as such, but rather declined on the basis that an article on that subject already exists at General Zionists. Your draft was replaced with a redirect to that article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy" (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • User:Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy"/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello, I'm seeking help due to my article being declined for reliable sources. I'm also new to creating. Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy" (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy": your draft is entirely unreferenced. Even if you 'know' this information to be true (seeing as you're writing about yourself), we can only accept information backed up by reliable published sources.

And speaking of writing about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:YESPROMO for some of the many, many reasons why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Antwan123123 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Arlene Lien ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

finished corrections Antwan123123 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antwan123123: okay, no need to announce it here, just resubmit the draft when you're ready... as indeed you have done.

I can tell you straight away, though, that it is insufficiently referenced, with a lot of unsupported biographical detail. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, and need inline citations to reliable published sources to support pretty much every statement you make. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 102.90.42.133 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Kourage Beatz Nsi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this draft notable yet? 102.90.42.133 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Please do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Manveerdulay (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Inni Kaur ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do I need to add/edit in order for this page to get approved? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected this back in November for it's totally inappropriate tone. If you have substantially changed the draft to cut out all the inappropriate text, let me know on my User Talk Page and I will have another look @Manveerdulay Qcne (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes the tone totally inappropriate? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your properly rejected draft is a hagiography packed full of praise for the subject. It is an obvious and glaring violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. It is utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, and you have been told to drop the matter. Please do so now. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read your own draft and also read our guidelines at WP:NPOV? I will extract the totally inappropriate sentences and words for you:

- renowned

- boasting

- artistic voyage

- extraordinary contributions

- profoundly shaped by her lively perspective on existence and her affinity

- discover delight in every instance, regarding each day as an occasion for jubilation

- literary endeavors

- immense joy in engaging with the splendor of the natural world via contemplative strolls and the contemplation of meandering clouds

- she channels her artistic inventiveness into abstract paintings, providing a display of her diverse skills

- odyssey

- diverse nations

- pivotal juncture

- evoked deep distress within her, simultaneously fortifying her bond with her cultural legacy

- She is highly regarded as an accomplished author, poet, and painter

- dedicated to fostering understanding among different faiths

- commitment to public service

- dedication to her faith

- recognized as a valuable resource

- impart the genuine essence

- heartfelt trans-creation of the teachings and grandeur of the Gurus reflects her genuine love and commitment

- eagerly anticipated narrative

- profound connection with Sikhi

- heartwarming experience

- comforting words and delightful illustrations

- loving and reassuring perspective on siblinghood

- beautifully portrays

- enriching their understanding

- playful approach

- embrace its endearing story and cultural richness

- beautifully illustrated chapters

- esteemed storyteller

- profound message of Guru Nanak

- appealing to readers of all ages

- deeply intrigued

- heartwarming tale

- cherishes the innocent and tender moments

- cherished ceremony of Dastar Bandi

- seamless blend of English and Panjabi

- captivating story and warm illustrations

- delight boys and girls

- entertaining and engaging manner

- Readers are often captivated by

- The book gracefully emphasizes

- esteemed institutions such as Yale

To be blunt, the draft needs a complete re-write. It is currently designed to promote Inni Kaur and ellict emotions from the reader; this is prohibited on Wikipedia. @Manveerdulay Qcne (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I will apologise, @Manveerdulay, for not answering your question on your User Talk Page back on the 09 November. I was not notified of your question there. Hopefully my answer above answers it. Qcne (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2.87.17.180 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:The Bonnie Nettles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I need specific information of HOW I'm able to make this article go live. The references I added are legit interviews of the band and everything in the article is based on facts being online. Is it that I added the references wrong or the actual references are assumed to be invalid?

Please let me know step by step what I have to fix!

Thank you in advance, Anestis Nine 2.87.17.180 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anestis Nine Remember to log in when posting. Interviews contribute nothing to notability, as an interview is not an independent source. Any article about this band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please see the advice left by the reviewer(specifically that all external links in the body of the text be removed). If you need help with referencing, see Referencing for beginners.

Do you have a particular need to have this article be "live"? 331dot (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand, but includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. What are the particular needs to have an article live? It's a biography and reliable information about a band and current status of them. I already changed references and added more and specific links for everything in the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anestis Nine I will ask more directly- do you work for or are otherwise associated with this band? 331dot (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that has nothing to do with the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with it- if you work for them, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. If you are just associated with them, you must make a conflict of interest disclosure.

You have embarked on the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- write a new article- and having a conflict of interest/paid relationship makes it even harder. Wikipedia is not a place for a band to tell the world about itself(either directly or through a representative). We want to know what others say about them and how they meet the definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you personally take this image with your own camera as you are claiming? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I just read the links you shared and I understood (mostly) how it should work and what is wrong in it.

I guess my information are not enough (For example that one photo is not with my camera but a friends so that should be clearly referenced) on it. Also I didn't knew that if you have any Association with the reffered-to is something invalid for Wikipedia) Anestis Nine (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So one of the next edits you make should be to make the needed disclosure on your user page(User:Anestis Nine).

If you are saying you took the image with your friend's camera, that's okay. What really matters is who the photographer was- mentioning the camera just serves to emphasize that.

Let's try it this way. What are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this band and are not interviews, press releases, mere announcements, brief mentions, or primary sources? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I completely understand that. Nothing difficult to refer as is not an unknown person or else.

I think there are only interviews (which contribute nothing to notability) and articles with QA interaction with the band. Or articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media (such music, or video music etc.) or social events(such us live shows / tours etc) that have being refereed from online magazines or articles/ authors.

Is any of the above suitable for the 3 sources you need? Anestis Nine (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to more specific sources(the actual news stories or what have you) but that's okay; interviews do not contribute to notability as it is by definition the subject speaking about themselves, which is not an independent source. Documentation of events or of the existence of the band's music(like music videos) in an of itself does not contribute to notability because that is not significant coverage.

You refer to "articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media"; if these authors chose on their own to write about the band, and discuss how it meets the definition of a notable band, that could work, but we would need to know specifically what those sources are.

I might suggest that you examine some articles about bands/musicians(The Beatles, Metallica, Fleetwood Mac, Billy Joel, etc.) to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Boingit (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Guy Waterman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Folks, I created this draft article after reading a biography of the subject and being astonished he didn't have a wikipedia entry. It seems someone had created one but it was low-quality and was deleted. I resurrected some of the text, threw lots out, created some new, and provided many references (I'm working on more now). I have not yet cited the bio that I read that started me off, and as @Notcharizard has noted, there is no ref for where his "overall story" comes from. What's the best way to do that? Should I say in the beginning that he was the subject of a biography and simply cite the book there? Boingit (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boingit: Yes. We accept offline cites as readily as we accept online ones, provided you give us enough information that we could look the information up in a library that has a copy of the book. (We need, at minimum: Book title, author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and either the ISBN or OCLC number.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• James Middieton (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Gta5online9 official ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I couldn't find a reason why my Article was declined, I am wondering why. I also added some more info too. James Middieton (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James Middieton really? You can see no reason why your draft was (correctly) rejected? None at all? Does it look like an encyclopaedic article to you? Qcne (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James Middieton: We don't accept what amounts to stories. We're an encyclopaedia project, and we (and our readers) have no use for inspirational stories like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jmparthage (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:David Hilowitz ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm wondering why my submission was rejected. This is a popular music YouTuber (over 300,000 subscribers), who also has created a very popular piece of music software (DecentSampler). It seems odd that neither they nor the software they created has a page. It says the references don't show significant coverage, but I provided 9 articles, all of which are about different projects, software, and videos that Hilowitz has worked on. The articles are by independent authors and publications. The rejection also states that the biography reads more like an advertisement. On the contrary, I actually think it's actually pretty scant as I stuck only to facts directly mentioned in the articles. I'm hoping this entry will get the ball rolling and more people will be able to fill in details as they become available. Jmparthage (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

The number of subscribers is not relevant, as that is not in the notability criteria. You did a nice job of telling what he does, but not what makes him notable according to independent reliable sources. Who considers him influential? What is his influence? Do others emulate him? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. That's an interesting challenge. I frequently see his work mentioned in Youtube videos made by other creators in the "music Youtube" space, but I'm not sure how to provide that as evidence of notoriety? Jmparthage (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). YouTube is itself not generally acceptable as a source, because anyone can post anything there without editorial oversight and fact checking. You'll need things like news reports or professional critiques/reviews of his work that describe what makes him important as a YouTuber. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the software makes him notable, it doesn't yet have an article. Probably he could be mentioned in such an article, but not a standalone one. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mfmq67 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Greg DeLine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined and I am having trouble trying to fix the issues with it. Do you have any recommendations on what I can do ? Mfmq67 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did a nice job telling about what he does, but not what makes him a notable person. Many people give to charities and found businesses; is there something particular about him that makes him stand out among the 8 billion humans on this planet? 331dot (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfmq67: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We can't use https://about.me/gregdeline (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it's useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• Everything on the https://www.gregdeline.com/ domain is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• https://www.downtowncomo.com/greg-deline/ is 404-compliant. (I get shown a splash page stating "There has been a critical error on this website".)
• https://ideamensch.com/greg-deline/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with non-substantial lede.
• https://issuu.com/insidecolumbia/docs/march22-sized/s/14987766 is borderline at best and more likely useless for notability (connexion to subject). The entire section in him is 90% Stuff He Says.
• https://comomag.com/2018/08/30/greg-deline/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). COMO Magazine is an arm of COMO Marketing, which is a PR/marketeer service.
• We can't use https://tlclender.com/greg-deline/ (unknown provenance, online marketplace). No author is listed for the text, and this appears to be a moneylender's website.
• https://cafnr.missouri.edu/stories/a-new-partnership/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is about UoM and DeLine Holdings collaborating on a research centre, and says practically nothing about DeLine other than quoting him.
• We can't use https://gregdelineunitedway.com/ (too sparse, connexion to subject). If you intend to cite the YouTube video, we can't use it (unknown provenance). We can only cite YouTube directly and only if (1) the video was created by an outlet we would regard as having editorial oversight and (2) that video was uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
• https://www.hwhrescue.org/greg-deline is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Blurb from an organisation he works for.

None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Baileyirelan (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:WagerWire ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I would like to know a few specific reasons why this article was rejected. I do believe it has sufficient third-party sources discussing it, and that is the only reason I can find that it was declined. Thanks in advance. Baileyirelan (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baileyirelan Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?

The draft was rejected for the exact reason stated- the subject is not sufficiently notable. You only wrote about the routine business activities of the company; this does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok that is good to know. To be notable enough, what coverage do I need to link rather than the routine business activities? Baileyirelan (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?

You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic- coverage that goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tronmajesteetiline (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:MAJESTEETILINE ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I make it publishable Tronmajesteetiline (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't publish vandalism. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Iamjakhar (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Umesh Jakhar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how to rewrite? Iamjakhar (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid no rewrite is possible, the draft has now been deleted as promotion. Wikipedia is not for telling about yourself, please read the Autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CrSb0001 (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:Xenon Pharmaceuticals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason that the page was declined says that it needs multiple resources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

So do I need to add references that meet all 4 criteria, or could I include multiple references for one particular thing that overall meet all 4 criteria altogether?

CrSb0001 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each reference needs to meet those criteria; what you describe would be original research. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IIlIlIl (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Pennington Family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What needs done to this to get it approved? IIlIlIl (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pennington Family IIlIlIl (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnnydeadline (talk · contribs) ⁽⁾
  • Draft:R.J. Shook ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to know how I can appeal a rejection to a higher authority. I have removed the offending sources and recast the proposed Wiki with new sources, but admins are relying on an error when rejecting this Wiki. They keep telling me that this Wiki is based on Forbes.com sources. But it is not. The content I cite is published in Forbes MagazineWikipedia (WP:FORBESCON) is confusing Forbes Magazine with Forbes.com. It is incorrectly disallowing all stories related to Forbes because Forbes.com publishes some sponsored content. First, Forbes.com is NOT all sponsored content. Some of it is, and some of it is not. Other stories are exact replicas of what appears in the magazine, Forbes. For some reason, wikipedia is disallowing anything that is published that references Forbes. I am sourcing Forbes magazine, not Forbes.com. The Forbes Magazine content is produced and edited by journalists, not by advertisers and marketers. I would like to appeal that this content be allowed as a source. Can you help me? Wikipedia needs to changes its notes related to Forbes and Forbes.com since the people who are disallowing Forbes content do not understand the difference. Thank you, JohnnyDeadline Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Johnnydeadline (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.

There is no "higher authority" here. First, you should raise your concerns with the reviewers. If they are misinterpreting guidelines, then we can discuss that here. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]